|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 175 responses total. |
raven
|
|
response 123 of 175:
| 
Oct 31 21:11 UTC 2000 |
I would say Gore & Bush share far more policy positions than Gore and
Nader. Where Gore and Bush are similar, both are pro death penalty, both
support increases in military spending (in fact Gore/Libierman's is
larger), both support the pure pork of a national missile defense system,
both are pro free trade with China and support the IMF/WTO/NAFTA, both
support very incremental reform to the health care system, both are pro
"welfare reform," both are heavily indebted to big corporations for
campaign support. Both are in fact so similar that I can only use a run on
sentence to describe them. :-)
A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush policy wise. That's why I'm voting for
Nader.
|
richard
|
|
response 124 of 175:
|
Oct 31 22:26 UTC 2000 |
raven thats ridiculous...gore is pro choice, bush is not...gore is
for affirmative action, bush is not. Bush wants to cut taxes, Gore wants
to invest government surplus in social security and medicare. Bush wants
to spend much more on defense than Gore (the notion that Gore wants
to spend more on defense than Bush is Nader propaganda that cant be
substantiated) Gore voted AGAINST the star wars missile defense program
in the senate. Bush's dad supported it.
Nader on the other hand is running on the ticket of a party he doesnt
seem to think is good enough for him to join. Unless Nader actually
joins the Green Party, he is just using them and they are using him.
And Gore is for strong campaign finance reform, which both bush and nader
oppose.
Raven, if you claim to be for anything Nader stands for, you shouldnt
want Bush as president. Bush is the only alternative in real terms to
Gore.
|
ric
|
|
response 125 of 175:
|
Oct 31 23:00 UTC 2000 |
In a close election, it makes sense to vote for the person
you would prefer to see in office, of the candidates that
are likely to have a chance to win.
Democrats voted for Carter in 1980 because they generally vote
democratic. They voted for Mondale for the same reason.
It's swing voters, we're talking about here, in situations of
choosing between one of the "Big Two" and an alternative. If
I were a swing voter, and I leaned democrat, but GW Bush had
a huge lead in the polls, I might consider voting for an
alternative party candidate, because the primary democratic
candidate has no chance.
But in this case, the winner is going to be either Al Gore or
George W. Bush. Maybe I'd like Harry Brown to be president,
or some socialist. But the fact is, either Al Gore or George
W. Bush is going to win, and of those two, I would certainly
not want to see the latter in office, so I will vote for Gore,
no matter how much I think the alternative candidate might do
a better job.
|
raven
|
|
response 126 of 175:
|
Oct 31 23:28 UTC 2000 |
re #124 According the Institute for Public Accuracy:
"When Gore and Bush have addressed the Pentagon budget, they have talked
about how much to increase it, not whether to do so. That is remarkable if
you consider that at $311 billion per year, the United States is already
spending more on its armed forces than the next seven largest military
powers combined. After dropping under the Bush administration and the
beginning of the Clinton administration, the Pentagon budget has increased
for the last several years. We are currently spending 22 times the
combined military budgets of the so-called rogue states: Iran, Iraq, North
Korea, Syria, Libya and Cuba. Our military budget is almost ten times that
of China. Gore and Lieberman have underscored that they plan to increase
the military budget by $10 billion per year, while Bush-Cheney plans
'only' a $4.5 billion per year boost for the Pentagon."
http://commondreams.org/news2000/1027-05.htm
Institute for Public Accuracy at: http://www.accuracy.org/
Certainly I'm no Bush supporter but Gore's policies are similar enoughto
Bush's that I'm no Gore supporter either.
|
raven
|
|
response 127 of 175:
|
Oct 31 23:38 UTC 2000 |
As for being "pro-choice" Gore was anti choice in the 80s voting for a
bill that defined a fetus as a person from the moment conception, and
voting against Federal funding for abortions for poor women. Gore is weak
kneed and follows the polls like the fair weather friend he will always
be. I dodn't trust a woman's rightn to chose to such a convictionless
man.
|
ric
|
|
response 128 of 175:
|
Nov 1 00:28 UTC 2000 |
I trust them more to him than I do to Bush!
|
janc
|
|
response 129 of 175:
|
Nov 1 01:33 UTC 2000 |
Um, people are allowed to change their opinions. It's a sign of strength,
not weakness. Not that I consider Gore a really strong pro-choicer. He backs
the no partial-birth abortion nonsense, I think. But the reasons for doubting
him are his policies not his history.
|
krj
|
|
response 130 of 175:
|
Nov 1 16:01 UTC 2000 |
from Slate: Jacob Weisberg argues that Nader's goal is to help Bush win,
in the hopes that a Bush presidency will screw up the country bad enough
to radicalize more people. http://slate.msn.com/politics and follow
the links.
|
ashke
|
|
response 131 of 175:
|
Nov 1 16:01 UTC 2000 |
And since when has having a personal policy against abortions, but respecting
another person's right to choose for themselves (hence the pro-choice) make
you convictionless? Quite frankly, I'm pro-choice, but I'm not for federal
funding for abortions, unless you are going to federally fund ALL medical
things. Has nothing to do with a women's right.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 132 of 175:
|
Nov 1 16:29 UTC 2000 |
I think "federal funding foir abortion" means including abortion as
a medical procedure in federal support for health, as in Medicare,
Medicaid, etc. I'm in favor of reproductive services (including
birth control) and abortion being included in any public health program
(after all, Viagra is).
|
brighn
|
|
response 133 of 175:
|
Nov 1 17:56 UTC 2000 |
Rane said what I was gonna say. =}
|
senna
|
|
response 134 of 175:
|
Nov 1 18:17 UTC 2000 |
Uh, Richard, I heard with my own ears Lieberman explain that his platform did,
in fact, propose to spend more money on the military than Bush-Cheney. Cheney
did not dispute this.
|
raven
|
|
response 135 of 175:
|
Nov 2 00:41 UTC 2000 |
# 134 Thank you I'm glad to see somone was actually listening and not just
mooing the Gore line of fear based based politics.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 136 of 175:
|
Nov 2 05:09 UTC 2000 |
Someone asked about Michigan's law on write-in candidates. It's fairly new,
last year, I think. It means that the votes for Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse
aren't counted, nor the votes for anyone else who has not informed the
election clerk of their availability to serve. It's a state law, so it only
affects Michigan's count.
If I recall, Carter had a legitimate chance in '80; 'twas Anderson whose hopes
were groundless. But I voted for Anderson any way. And for Mondale a few
years later, because he told the truth: "We have to raise taxes."
|
mary
|
|
response 137 of 175:
|
Nov 2 13:44 UTC 2000 |
The ballot gives directions on how to "write in" a vote but makes
no mention of how the vote is only valid for registered candidates.
|
richard
|
|
response 138 of 175:
|
Nov 2 16:26 UTC 2000 |
nbc/reuters poll of nader voters indicates more than half say they
*might* change their minds and arent firmly committed. And virtually
all indicate that if they did change their mind, they'd vote for Gore.
If Nader only keeps half his vote, this could mean a spike of 2/3 point
nationally for Gore. I think the gop doing pro-Nader ads may backfire.
|
brighn
|
|
response 139 of 175:
|
Nov 2 18:21 UTC 2000 |
#138> Didn't I already predict that?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 140 of 175:
|
Nov 3 02:44 UTC 2000 |
Mary's comment reminds me that the poll workers aren't allowed to tell
you who is running as a write-in candidate, either.
|
polygon
|
|
response 141 of 175:
|
Nov 5 17:27 UTC 2000 |
Re 84, 136, 137, 140. I suppose the argument for the new law is that
it will make vote counting easier, since dealing with write-in votes
requires a fair amount of paperwork.
Most write-ins are NOT for Donald Duck or similar fictional characters:
they are for real people. The old requirement was that a write-in
candidate get at least three votes in a precinct to be named in the
election results; otherwise, they'd be counted as "scattering".
Under the new law, a write-in candidate could get hundreds of votes, and
none of them would show up at all, not even as "scattering".
Michigan used to have an excellent election law, probably one of the best
in the country. Not any more, thanks to our current and recent
legislature, both political parties, and certain politically motivated
judges.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 142 of 175:
|
Nov 5 21:52 UTC 2000 |
I'd always heard that DD and MM never got more than one or two votes. I'd
always thought that there were more write-in votes than that, if there were
any.
"It will make vote counting easier" was probably the *excuse*. The reason
was no doubt to limit non-party candidacies.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 143 of 175:
|
Nov 6 00:08 UTC 2000 |
Snoopy is always a good write-in.
Pat Paulsen used to be a good write-in.
Anybody care to write-in Larry Kestenbaum?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 144 of 175:
|
Nov 6 03:28 UTC 2000 |
Nah; he's not (currently) interested in serving my area. 'sides, last I
heard, he was on the ballot for the area he *is* interested in serving.
|
scott
|
|
response 145 of 175:
|
Nov 7 00:59 UTC 2000 |
I'm voting for Nader, and the more I think about it, the less I feel Gore
needs my vote. Well, I guess Gore would like my vote, but I *don't* feel
like a possible Bush win is the end of the world. Almost the opposite,
actually.
Polls show that a majority of Americans support abortion rights. That's
pretty important to remember when people start saying that a Bush win will
mean the end of reproductive rights.
Let's say Bush is elected, Congress remains Republican, and the Supreme Court
gets packed with vengeful abortion foes. Then let's say that a nationwide
abortion ban is passed. The end of abortion? Hardly. If nothing else, it
will drag a lot of nonvoters to the polls 4 years from now! But I doubt even
that will happen. All those politicians who run on the anti-abortion plank
really *don't* want such a law passed! They really only want to *look* like
they're trying to get abortion outlawed. If abortion actually did get
outlawed, then a whole lot of generally complacent centrist people would
suddenly decide that while fiscal conservatism is nice, banning abortion is
going too far. This could really cause a *big* shift to the left in Congress,
and unseat a lot of people.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 146 of 175:
|
Nov 7 02:01 UTC 2000 |
I'd like to see continuing progress is our freedoms. I don't see any
justification for arguing for doing it with two steps forward and one
step back (or maybe three steps back, before progressing again). Our
lives are finite, you know.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 147 of 175:
|
Nov 7 03:40 UTC 2000 |
Mary Maitlin, a Bush advisor said at lunch today that this election will
influence the politics of a whole generation. Not only are the Supreme Court
seats part of the package, but about half the Federal Court judicial seats
will be up for appointments. She said that whoever wins the election will
not only have the executive branch, but will also have a significant impact
on the judicial. In addition, at the local level, whoever controls the state
legislatures for the next 2 years will redraw the Congressional districts.
(she and James Carville were speaking at the Washtenaw Economic Club luncheon
today. I was there).
|